Defence forces to get 28.5% pay rise

cremeegg said:

If it did otherwise I think the individuals who took that decision should be held to account personally.

Click to expand...

Unless of course they are now retired. Once someone retired they cannot be held to account for anything they did while working. It's the Irish way.

cremeegg said:

As in the deafness case where those who suffered no hearing loss received payouts.

Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges. The problem with the army deafness was that it was impossible to measure accurately if hearing loss was suffered, or the effects of tinnitus. All that could be established was that they were exposed to conditions (failure to effectively administering protective hearing equipment) in an environment (military training) that plausibly could lead to someone suffering tinnitus.

Regarding the administration of Lariam, firstly no compensation has been awarded. Legal argument and medical evidence will need to support any claims. I would imagine that some evidence will need to be supported by medical reports identifying patterns of behavior or treatment for depression etc in addition to scientific evidence that suggests a pattern of similar effects over pro-longed usage.

See the thing is cremeegg, you may have valid concerns but to go calling people "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case is in the land of Donald Trump! BTW I just checked and the Prime Time report was back in 2013, see this report on it.

Ceist Beag said:

See the thing is cremeegg, you may have valid concerns but to go calling people "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case is in the land of Donald Trump! BTW

Click to expand...

To say that “everyone involved may not have had a valid claim” hardly cuts it. I refer you again to the links in post 6 of this thread.

The rise of Trump ( digression alert, but you did make that comparison) was caused in large part by voters valid concerns being ignored by the establishment. Well I have concerns about the vast sums paid out on the army deafness claims and these concerns were ignored. Now it seems possible that further vast sums will be paid out, possibly where everyone concerned may again not have a valid claim.

If enough other people are equally concerned we may end up with our own Trump. However that is unlikely as after all its only the governments money. Nothing to do with the rest of us.

Of course maybe this time the establishment will resist payments in the abscence of valid claims thus averting the rise of an Irish Trump.

Stop muddying the waters by mixing the issues cremeegg. We're no longer talking about the deafness claims, we're now talking about the potential Lariam claims. So post 6 of this thread is no longer relevant. You are calling the people in the latest Lariam story "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case.
You have absolutely no evidence of this, merely a concern based on the previous deafness cases. Therefore your description of these people is emotive and unsubstantiated, kind of like the statements the orange character tweets regularly.

cremeegg said:

Now it seems possible that further vast sums will be paid out, possibly where everyone concerned may again not have a valid claim.

Click to expand...

Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "may again not " suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims.
Either there is a valid claim or not. That will be decided through the claims and courts process.
The payments in army deafness cases were made on foot of legal argument determining that that the claimants did have a valid claim.

It has already been stated by other posters that Lariam was taken without side effects.
Critical to all of this will be evidence of pro-longed use and/or continued administration of a drug after it was known (if at all) to Army hierarchy of its potential dangers.
Once that is established, medical histories of claimants combined with their usage of the drug will also be critical.

TheBigShort said:

Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "may again not " suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims.
Either there is a valid claim or not. That will be decided through the claims and courts process.
The payments in army deafness cases were made on foot of legal argument determining that that the claimants did have a valid claim.

It has already been stated by other posters that Lariam was taken without side effects.
Critical to all of this will be evidence of pro-longed use and/or continued administration of a drug after it was known (if at all) to Army hierarchy of its potential dangers.
Once that is established, medical histories of claimants combined with their usage of the drug will also be critical.

Click to expand...

I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.

Ceist Beag said:

Stop muddying the waters by mixing the issues cremeegg. We're no longer talking about the deafness claims, we're now talking about the potential Lariam claims. So post 6 of this thread is no longer relevant.

Click to expand...

I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.

Ceist Beag said:

You are calling the people in the latest Lariam story "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case.
You have absolutely no evidence of this, merely a concern based on the previous deafness cases. Therefore your description of these people is emotive and unsubstantiated, kind of like the statements the orange character tweets regularly.

Click to expand...

The phrase "obscene greedy chancers" was intended to refer to those who profited from the army deafness scam, even though they were issued with ear protection and suffered no hearing loss. I think under the circumstances it is a reasonable characterisation.

As to the Lariam situation, I think that every "obscene greedy chancer" who ever wore a uniform will gravitate to this scam as well. Does it matter if Lariam was ever issued to them, based on the deafness scam, it would seem not. Does it matter if their suffering can be objectively established, same answer. Does it matter if any suffering they did experience can be linked to any Lariam, they may or may not have taken, same again.

Compensation was paid in the deafness scandal to people who were issued ear protection, who suffered no hearing loss. I fear we are in for a repeat. I hope I am wrong.

Purple said:

I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. But ultimately it was the courts that decided the claims were valid. They did this through legal argument.
If anyone jumped on the bandwagon to claim money then they are fraudulent. However, it is not possible to determine who was fraudulent and who was genuine, by virtue of the medical evidence.
So what do we do - if in doubt pay out (meaning fraudulent claims get paid at a cost to taxpayer) or if in doubt dont pay out (meaning genuine claims get no redress)?

As for tying the army deafness to the Lariam case, it has no bearing. These are two separate issues. The detail and substance of claims will greatly differ. For instance, there should at least be evidence from clinical trials available from the producer which may support or not the claimants accusations.

cremeegg said:

I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.

Click to expand...

It has no bearing. It is a totally different situation, different claim, different basis, different context etc.

cremeegg said:

As to the Lariam situation, I think that every "obscene greedy chancer" who ever wore a uniform will gravitate to this scam as well

Click to expand...

Your inherent prejudice is all too apparent. You are declaring this issue a "scam" without anything to back that assertion up other than your perceived view that the army deafness claims were all a scam, so therefore this must be a scam too.

https://www.independent.ie/life/i-t...ere-ruined-by-antimalarial-drug-37361772.html

"The problems with Lariam are no secret. The drug is either not used or is treated as a medication of last resort by the military in France, Germany, the US, Canada and Australia.

In advice to doctors in 2013, manufacturers Roche said the most common neuropsychiatric reactions to it included abnormal dreams, insomnia, anxiety and depression. The manufacturer said hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behaviour had also been reported.

A report commissioned by the Department of Defence on the drug and delivered the same year remains under wraps. The department has refused to publish it, saying it is "legally privileged".

Despite the mounting number of lawsuits and harrowing stories of ruined lives, Lariam remains one of three drugs currently prescribed to personnel on duty in malarial regions. The others are Malarone and Doxycycline.

In reality though, for many missions, Lariam appears to have been the only sanctioned option."

Today as we speak Lariam is still the primary anti-malarial prescribed for DF personnel. I cant understand how our DoD has concluded differently to the French, German, US, Canadian and Australian militaries and the MANUFACTURER! The Departments actions speak for themselves. Not understanding the issue is no reason to blame the victim. That says more about the commentator than the victims.

In relation to army deafness in response to the "evidence" of Michael Smith that is quoted in post 6, Francis Fitzgerald in reply to the Minister at the time said:

"I question some aspects of the State's strategy and some of the underlying assumptions that may be directing thinking on the matter. There has been a tendency to rubbish the cases and to stereotype claimants. There has been great concern about ambulance chasing solicitors who are dealing with the matter in an opportunistic way. While I accept there is a problem, we cannot stereotype all solicitors or lawyers dealing with the matter.

The matter has been left to the courts and when this has not produced the desired results, judicial decisions have been queried. Whatever we may wish to assume, we cannot dismiss the claimants involved. Leaving aside the Irish situation, there is adequate global evidence of hearing disability being caused in the manner described by many claimants."

She could well be speaking to the perversion of the issue that is still being trotted out today.

Another mini compo arranged for our heroes has just been announced.

Still this one will only cost in the region of €120,000, so no biggie.

There doesn’t seem to be any provision for lawyers to wet their beaks. I wonder.

Troops in the Golan Heights stuck there for an extra 2 weeks due, it seems, to incompetence by Army management.
When was the last time someone was sacked for incompetence from the Defence Forces?

cremeegg said:

Another mini compo arranged for our heroes has just been announced.

Still this one will only cost in the region of €120,000, so no biggie.

There doesn’t seem to be any provision for lawyers to wet their beaks. I wonder.

Click to expand...

I take then it you are still peddling the Lariam issue as a scam?

Purple said:

Troops in the Golan Heights stuck there for an extra 2 weeks due, it seems, to incompetence by Army management.
When was the last time someone was sacked for incompetence from the Defence Forces?

Click to expand...

I think an investigation into what occurred has been called for.

TheBigShort said:

I take then it you are still peddling the Laraim issue as a scam?

Click to expand...

Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified.

Legal firms touting for potential litigants.

A history of huge payouts for heroes, some despite evidence that no harm occurred.

All without any evidence as to the cause of any harm which might have occurred.

Yes I think that lots of our heroes who were prescribed Lariam will be down to the four goldmines to see what they might get out of it.

TheBigShort said:

I think an investigation into what occurred has been called for.

Click to expand...

You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.

Purple said:

You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.

Click to expand...

In my opinion the taxpayer is likely to be severely scantioned.

cremeegg said:

Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified.

Click to expand...

I will take this that you do consider it a scam. Despite @Itchy post above which suggests that tests of the drug have objectively verified side effects of the ones being suffered you still continue your unsubstantiated nonsense.

And as for the 'cost to the taxpayer', it is the taxpayer that puts in place the legal mechanisms for redress in the first place. Perhaps we could shut down the courts, save the 'taxpayer' a packet?

Purple said:

You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.

Click to expand...

a) the Minister will probably be blamed by opposition politicians and media hacks looking for a headline to feed the baying sheep

b) The prospect that our defence communications systems are simply inadequate, in a time of increasing military tensions between Israel and Syria is probably too boring a story.

And if communications systems were compromised in any way, well that means more dosh to be spent on upgrading the systems - but I suspect the 'taxpayer' wont be happy about that either.